>>>Seth Russell said:
> From: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
>
> > >>>Seth Russell said:
> > > And while were at that, why not invent another useful property ...
> > > something to mean 'preferred human friendly name' ... this would be
> > > like a cyc constant, a kif term, or a rdf:label. The thing that is
> > > different between it and rdf:about (aside from the fact that it would
> > > be human user friendly) is that it can change (be renamed) from time
> > > to time and from system to system. But in any given system at any
> > > given time it would be unique. For a moment let's just call this new
> > > term ':named'. Nodes so named internally would be tied to
> >> URI like this:
> > > [:uri <http://foo/#Dog>;
> > > :named "Doggie"].
>
> > However, rdfs:label already exists, so why not just use that?
Thanks for snipping all my reply and leaving just one line.
> Because rdfs:label is not guaranteed to be a unique name for a node within
> one system (or application memory storage) .. as specified above [1] ... yet
> it can come from the outside world and cannot be ignored. This is not too
> unusual of a concept, CycL does it. Such an internal name property is
> useful, because then you can just scribble something to your system without
> haveing to remember namespaces, URI or even include all those annoying
> colons. For example:
I see, so you want a unique name. In that case, you need schema
systems such as DAML that have such restrictions. This isn't going
to get into the core RDF schema at this time.
> {Seth likes Chocolate}.
{} brackets now, was [] above. Is this significant?
> Then that can be communicated to the outside world in valid RDF\XML just
> fine because it matches with the nodes inside your system where the info
> below is stored:
RDF/XML
>
> {Seth uri "http://robustai.net/~seth#ThePerson".
> likes uri "http://robustai.net/verbs/#likes" .
> Chocolate uri "http://robustai.net/EnglishNouns#Chocolate" .}
This looks like reification into N3 contexts/formulas. So this is
again beyond-RDF, and interesting but not something happening in the
core RDF work at this time.
Are 'Seth' 'uri' etc URIs, bnodes? And now you have '.' inside the {}s
Please use a valid N3 or RDF/XML syntax
> ... just translate the ':named' to the URI and output it with a
> 'rdf:about' .. not exactly rocket science. The obvious advantage is that we
> have eliminated the kind of pedantic problems which you have warned me about
> above ... disadvantages ... well I can't think of any ... can you?
There is no :named in the second examples. And if you want to talk
about atranslations please show the translation in legal RDF/XML such
as some that validates with http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/
or N3 that works with Cwm.
The syntaxes you are using or inventing here aren't helping.
> Now obviously this is a API or application choice, it doesn't even need to
> be a standard in RDF.
Not likely at this stage; but maybe at the WebONT language level
or later RDF work.
Dave